First, I’d like to apologize in advance for the likely low quality of content contained herein. I’m also sorry for making my first post a question with an answer that is most likely obvious - I’m new not only to these forums but also to the deeper, more complex philosophies.
I’ve taken an interest in (although neither an attachment to nor a belief in) nihilism and postmodernism - as you can guess, I’ve read my fair share of Foucault, Agamben, etc. I understand most of it fairly well, except for just a couple of things. The first is everything written by Martin Heidegger, which I’ll either never understand or will just have to read over and over. The other problem is the question I’m asking here: What exactly are “soft” nihilism and “complete” nihilism? I’ve done considerable digging, and I haven’t found much of anything that explains them at all. I don’t expect to be paid much mind because of my lack of status, but the answer is always “no” if the request is never made.
Firstly, that’s waaaay too much humility. It’s nauseating. Buck up.
Secondly, Heidegger is very difficult. Also, he loves to hear himself talk. Try reading every other sentence. You laugh, but at least every other sentence in heidegger is unnecessary.
Thirdly, I don’t really know what this distinction is, unless it means that nihilism can be an analytical tool, or an “epistemology”. For an example of the former, read all of Nietzsche and report back to us. For an example of the latter, read Albert Camus.
Thanks a lot, and sorry about the excessive humility. I just try to be cautious and avoid hubris when I’m trying to ease into a new community. The real me will shine through soon enough.
Hey - Heidegger was obsessed with this being stuff. So much so that he attempted to invent a sort of “phenomenology of ontology”. What he really invented was an ontology of phenomenology. He tried his best to escape metaphysics, and wound up inventing a new kind. You might not be the one who is confused here - it might just be Heidegger. Ever cross your mind?
Don’t worry - you’re not crazy. Mathematics has nothing to do with metaphysics, and technology isn’t God. Heidegger was just a little nuts.
Biopower, read a book called “The Will to Power” by Nietzsche. He has a fair bit to say about nihilism. I am unsure as to what you mean by “soft” and “complete” nihilism, but Nietzsche I am sure will answer these questions for you.
Chrisitianity and buddhism is nihilist due to being “anti-life”,i.e. a denial of the will. Nietzsche also dislikes a prioris and any “thou shalt” statements. These are nihilist also because they are seemingly putting restraints on the will.
I think, only think, that buddhism is “complete” nihilism because it believes in a total denial of the will and consequently the “nothing”. Whereas modern Christianity and the “herd”, as Nietzsche called them, would be “soft” nihilism because although they still will to an extent, it is a very weak will, one that centres around love thy neighbour and pity as the highest ideals.
You see, I don’t understand how you can say things like this but not enjoy Derrida.
Knowledge is Biopower,
Firstly, there’s no need for for the modesty or the apologetics. The way that I gained respect here was by blundering in, making a noisy mess, getting into trouble, making a handful of high-profile errors and then redeeming myself. It’s a strategy I can recommend to all relatively new members - be arrogant and completely overstep the boundaries of your knowledge. It’ll do you good to get caught out and then feel like you’ve got something to prove.
Where did you get the terms “soft nihilism” and “complete nihilism”? That might give us valuable clues as to how they are being used, and therefore what they mean. The meaning of a word is its use in language. For some reason a certain other poster on this thread seems to think that Wittgenstein wasn’t worth very much, despite this most vital of formulations.
saitd - maybe I don’t enjoy Derrida because I say it so much better than he does. What I say in a sentence, he says in a chapter. Among much superfluous and incoherent babble.
Beyond that, you have provided so many straight lines for me here that it isn’t even fun to cash in on them.
Wittgy? He said that? Yes. But it’s a comical truism, you prat.
But hell, we sure have a mystery, don’t we. I am glad to see these other comments. I thought I was the only one who didn’t know these terms. And if I can’t google it, I am lost.
Blunder in, make a noisy mess, get into trouble… Hmm. Ok.
What is nihilism? Can you give it to me in a paragraph? Or perhaps a sentence? How about sound bites? Do you do sound bites? Also, could you make a 5 second commercial about post-modernism? I have an aversion to reading the literature, mostly because it’s outdated, sometimes because it is convoluted. Plus, I’m not that interested.
anyways, as i have encounterd the terms i have found that the differentiation lies within whether or not by “value” you necessarily mean moral value and truth.
in other words, complete nihilism is akin to the french [sartre] variation that all is valueless, life is totally absurd - which if embraced means complete and absolute freedom. foucault is also more like that.
with nietzsche, i see “soft” nihilism as a challenge to create a new moral value based upon ethics or things we otherwise accept as “true” and not merely upon traditional, supernatural, or religious value.
